So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Second Amendment People : Gun owners, you could also say they are pro-gun, but if you say they are in favor of the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms, they sound like they are nicer people.

Trump made a joke that was funny, but it shouldn't be.There is a theory that if Hillary was president, and a supreme court judge died, she could replace him with a judge who was opposed to the 2nd amendment, and this judge may some how bring about a ban on guns.So what! After this judge is sworn in, he can't be fired. He could say " I lied, I love the 2nd amendment, but I said I was on your side to get this job, and you fell for it ,you stupid ***** !," and there's not a thing she could do about it.Maybe someday the secret service will go on strike and someone will kill Hillary. If that happens she won't be taking anyone's gun away.Of course this is only a theory.However we can't dismiss this theory if we take into consideration the percentage of presidents who have been shot.It is a challenge to make a joke about death that is funny, so we have to give Mr. Trump credit, but he is a candidate for president, not a comedian, so this is another incident when he failed to keep his mouth shut.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

WHy on earth would I. Trump said dumb a$$ crap yet again, and the OP is showing how big a dumb a$$ you have to be to accept the crap walk-back offered by Trump.

incidentally, why does super alpha-man Trump have to walk back all these "straight talk" statements. I though he and his supporters were itching to "say it like it is".

At 8/11/2016 4:13:47 AM, xus00HAY wrote:Second Amendment People : Gun owners, you could also say they are pro-gun, but if you say they are in favor of the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms, they sound like they are nicer people.

Trump made a joke that was funny, but it shouldn't be.There is a theory that if Hillary was president, and a supreme court judge died, she could replace him with a judge who was opposed to the 2nd amendment, and this judge may some how bring about a ban on guns.So what! After this judge is sworn in, he can't be fired. He could say " I lied, I love the 2nd amendment, but I said I was on your side to get this job, and you fell for it ,you stupid ***** !," and there's not a thing she could do about it.Maybe someday the secret service will go on strike and someone will kill Hillary. If that happens she won't be taking anyone's gun away.Of course this is only a theory.However we can't dismiss this theory if we take into consideration the percentage of presidents who have been shot.It is a challenge to make a joke about death that is funny, so we have to give Mr. Trump credit, but he is a candidate for president, not a comedian, so this is another incident when he failed to keep his mouth shut.

Okay, I think this bears stating because of this ridiculous notion about gun control.

There are probably a few democrats who don't want people to own guns; that's a long way from having a policy idea, a long way for it to be a majority view in the democratic party, and an even longer way from actually being supported by the US as a whole.

Your theory, and the "she wants to take your guns" ridiculousness is one of the most ignorant of the US legislative and political system that I have ever seen, and even the smallest googling of the government, and understanding of what would happen would tell you it's not going to happen.

To start off, Clinton needs to get supreme court justices on the bench that oppose the second amendment. They will have to lie about their support of it, and make the claim that "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" actually means "the right to keep and bear arms isn't a right".

If they don't lie; it's not going to make it through the senate; senators (even if they agree), won't be re-elected if they support it, and it's highly unlikely that the democrats will have the majority needed to break a filibuster.

Secondly, you need as a test case to ban guns. At a federal level, this requires going through both congress and the senate. Again, we're talking about re-election and the future of the democratic party.

Once the test case goes through, all of the states need to enforce it. Do you really think states like Kansas, Oklahoma, Texas, etc, will actually support such a move? I doubt it.

If they did enforce it, do you think that this wouldn't cause a major civil unrest the likes of which the US hasn't seen for generations?

And this is not to mention the potential for actual physical harm that could befall anyone supporting this position from the moment even the first movement in that direction starts.

Do you think none of the people involved in the decision know that?

So no, Hilary is not going to take your guns; think of here what you will, but any idiot knows that if she tried, it would destroy the democratic party, destroy her election chances, raise the risk of personal harm to themselves so much that it wouldn't be safe for them anywhere; and possibly even destroy the country as you know it.

No, it's not going to happen; and everyone who is telling you that she's going to take your guns is lying about it in order to convince you that a group of smart, intelligent people who happen to disagree with you on how to run the country are boogeymen; because if they convince people like you that they are, you're not going to vote for them.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke

It seems that you think Trump was jokingly calling for an assassination.

That's the best explanation I can come up with, which if true, is still repulsive.

But I try not to get to deep into guessing games. There is only one person on earth who knows what he was trying to say, and that is Donald Trump. All the rest of us can do is look at what he actually said and use logic and reason to reach our own conclusions. So I decided to lay it out plainly and clearly to see if anyone dare try to put together a rational argument in support of Trump's "defense".

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke

It seems that you think Trump was jokingly calling for an assassination.

That's the best explanation I can come up with, which if true, is still repulsive.

But I try not to get to deep into guessing games. There is only one person on earth who knows what he was trying to say, and that is Donald Trump. All the rest of us can do is look at what he actually said and use logic and reason to reach our own conclusions. So I decided to lay it out plainly and clearly to see if anyone dare try to put together a rational argument in support of Trump's "defense".

It's the most probable explanation for what happened. Trump's explanations are a bunch of bullsh!t as usual.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Trump is smart enough to know that what he said had the innuendo that he was calling for people to stop Hillary with guns.

The thing is that many of his supporters were blatantly calling for Hillary to be executed for the email scandal, before Trump even said this. I do not believe that Trump actually thinks Hillary should be killed. However, he wants his supporters to believe that it is justifiable to kill Hillary.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one

+1

It was a mistake that was made on the spot, not that big of a deal. The media trying argue that Trump urges people to assassinate Clinton just doesn't make sense, and is made by people just trying to diss Trump. That is intellectual dishonesty there, and not journalism.

At 8/11/2016 4:13:47 AM, xus00HAY wrote:Second Amendment People : Gun owners, you could also say they are pro-gun, but if you say they are in favor of the 2nd amendment's right to bear arms, they sound like they are nicer people.

Trump made a joke that was funny, but it shouldn't be.There is a theory that if Hillary was president, and a supreme court judge died, she could replace him with a judge who was opposed to the 2nd amendment, and this judge may some how bring about a ban on guns.So what! After this judge is sworn in, he can't be fired. He could say " I lied, I love the 2nd amendment, but I said I was on your side to get this job, and you fell for it ,you stupid ***** !," and there's not a thing she could do about it.Maybe someday the secret service will go on strike and someone will kill Hillary. If that happens she won't be taking anyone's gun away.Of course this is only a theory.However we can't dismiss this theory if we take into consideration the percentage of presidents who have been shot.It is a challenge to make a joke about death that is funny, so we have to give Mr. Trump credit, but he is a candidate for president, not a comedian, so this is another incident when he failed to keep his mouth shut.

This is so dumb in so many ways. The possibility that a judge would lie about there position on the second amendment is null, as the judge would have stated his/her position prior to being considered being nominated to SC. Thus making "lying" about the position impossible. Even entertaining that hypothetical is ludicrous

The secret service would never, and should never go on strike. The SS primary job is to protect the presidents life, which is important due the amount of danger they encounter. Endangering someone's life due to political disagreements in vile.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one

+1

It was a mistake that was made on the spot, not that big of a deal. The media trying argue that Trump urges people to assassinate Clinton just doesn't make sense, and is made by people just trying to diss Trump. That is intellectual dishonesty there, and not journalism.

To be fair, almost every attack against Trump has been intellectual dishonesty.

If you put the federal government in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 years there'd be a shortage of sand. - Friedman

Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. -Friedman

Nothing is so permanent as a temporary government program. - Friedman

Society will never be free until the last Democrat is strangled with the entrails of the last Communist.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one

+1

It was a mistake that was made on the spot, not that big of a deal. The media trying argue that Trump urges people to assassinate Clinton just doesn't make sense, and is made by people just trying to diss Trump. That is intellectual dishonesty there, and not journalism.

It was a quip, but he said what he said. To now, as he has before, walk away from the comment - give bullsh1t excuses, looks like the coward he is. Where is this "alpha man"? the "straight talker"? The "not concerned with what is PC" guy?

No. He said that crap, he spoke like he does every day - recklessly. Just say it was a mistake, learn, and move on. He can;t do it, can he?

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one

+1

It was a mistake that was made on the spot, not that big of a deal. The media trying argue that Trump urges people to assassinate Clinton just doesn't make sense, and is made by people just trying to diss Trump. That is intellectual dishonesty there, and not journalism.

To be fair, almost every attack against Trump has been intellectual dishonesty.

There's a couple that are stretching things; the baby one in particular.

But no, actually that is absolutely wrong.

Trump gets called on his behavior, and repeatedly lying, and ridiculous rhetoric that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Most of the claims about what he said, are based on actual video of what he said and how he said it rather than speculative twisting of words; meaning that the only way you can possibly claim it's "intellectually dishonest", is if somehow Hillary isn't exposed to anything like the scrutiny.

The major lies that Hilary has told, like twisting the truth about what Comey said about her email investigation, the email investigation itself, one of her really bad interviews on it, the subsequent release of pay-to-play, coverage of Assanges recent claims about Hilary, analysis of her trustworthiness ratings, claims about truthfulness, her arrival at Bosnia, and so, so many more have been reported in the majority of trump-hostile news sources that I read, so you can't claim that.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one

+1

It was a mistake that was made on the spot, not that big of a deal. The media trying argue that Trump urges people to assassinate Clinton just doesn't make sense, and is made by people just trying to diss Trump. That is intellectual dishonesty there, and not journalism.

To be fair, almost every attack against Trump has been intellectual dishonesty.

There's a couple that are stretching things; the baby one in particular.

But no, actually that is absolutely wrong.

Trump gets called on his behavior, and repeatedly lying, and ridiculous rhetoric that doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Most of the claims about what he said, are based on actual video of what he said and how he said it rather than speculative twisting of words; meaning that the only way you can possibly claim it's "intellectually dishonest", is if somehow Hillary isn't exposed to anything like the scrutiny.

The major lies that Hilary has told, like twisting the truth about what Comey said about her email investigation, the email investigation itself, one of her really bad interviews on it, the subsequent release of pay-to-play, coverage of Assanges recent claims about Hilary, analysis of her trustworthiness ratings, claims about truthfulness, her arrival at Bosnia, and so, so many more have been reported in the majority of trump-hostile news sources that I read, so you can't claim that.

The endless ranting about the "liberal media" makes me sick. Clinton, while I am not a big fan, has withstood scrutiny no politician has endured. If Trump can't stand up to a stiff wind, you can't blame the media. Trump says stupid things every day. Blame the guy making stupid statements, not the people with the damn cameras.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

WHy on earth would I. Trump said dumb a$$ crap yet again, and the OP is showing how big a dumb a$$ you have to be to accept the crap walk-back offered by Trump.

incidentally, why does super alpha-man Trump have to walk back all these "straight talk" statements. I though he and his supporters were itching to "say it like it is".

Try doing the same with Hillary, Obama and even Sanders; let's see how it comes out.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

WHy on earth would I. Trump said dumb a$$ crap yet again, and the OP is showing how big a dumb a$$ you have to be to accept the crap walk-back offered by Trump.

incidentally, why does super alpha-man Trump have to walk back all these "straight talk" statements. I though he and his supporters were itching to "say it like it is".

Try doing the same with Hillary, Obama and even Sanders; let's see how it comes out.

What do you even mean? If you are trying to say they say Trump is as bad or worse then them, so vote Trump, just what the hell? Are you saying that.. No, I don't get it at all. Super alpha Trump says use your gun rights to 'fix' this problem, then hides like a child the next day. You guys have backed a chicken sh1t who can't even stick by his nastyness fot 12 hours.

Shillary has not 'survived' scrutiny. Had she been up against a Reagen, or hell, even a Nixon she would have been beaten badly. There are people who don't want to drink the koolaid Hillary is dishing out. Same with Trump.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

WHy on earth would I. Trump said dumb a$$ crap yet again, and the OP is showing how big a dumb a$$ you have to be to accept the crap walk-back offered by Trump.

incidentally, why does super alpha-man Trump have to walk back all these "straight talk" statements. I though he and his supporters were itching to "say it like it is".

Try doing the same with Hillary, Obama and even Sanders; let's see how it comes out.

What do you even mean? If you are trying to say they say Trump is as bad or worse then them, so vote Trump, just what the hell?

Huh?

Are you saying that.. No, I don't get it at all.

What's so difficult to understand?

1) Democrats take ever sentence that comes out of Trump's mouth and performs some serious mental gymnastics to drive home how horrible Trump is.

2) Democrats take everything democrats say...shrug their shoulders and drive home how terrible Trump is.

Super alpha Trump says use your gun rights to 'fix' this problem, then hides like a child the next day.

As opposed to democrats who say things like how they have proof Romney doesn't pay taxes then right after the election brags how they lied, they don't care and they would do it again.

So you can say and do whatever you want, it's OK as long as you don't give a sh!t.

You guys have backed a chicken sh1t who can't even stick by his nastyness fot 12 hours.

I don't back Trump at all, I simply would like to see equality and transparency which are two things that any honest person can admit are undeniably non-existent.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

WHy on earth would I. Trump said dumb a$$ crap yet again, and the OP is showing how big a dumb a$$ you have to be to accept the crap walk-back offered by Trump.

incidentally, why does super alpha-man Trump have to walk back all these "straight talk" statements. I though he and his supporters were itching to "say it like it is".

Try doing the same with Hillary, Obama and even Sanders; let's see how it comes out.

What do you even mean? If you are trying to say they say Trump is as bad or worse then them, so vote Trump, just what the hell?

Huh?

Are you saying that.. No, I don't get it at all.

What's so difficult to understand?

1) Democrats take ever sentence that comes out of Trump's mouth and performs some serious mental gymnastics to drive home how horrible Trump is.

Right, and you don't think this happens from Republicans? Are you seriously trying to say that.

2) Democrats take everything democrats say...shrug their shoulders and drive home how terrible Trump is.

Politics. Just politics. If Clinton says something about killing Trump, then you can tell us all about it.

Super alpha Trump says use your gun rights to 'fix' this problem, then hides like a child the next day.

As opposed to democrats who say things like how they have proof Romney doesn't pay taxes then right after the election brags how they lied, they don't care and they would do it again.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you would like to show me, feel free. I do however wonder where Trump's taxes are. Any day now, right?

So you can say and do whatever you want, it's OK as long as you don't give a sh!t.

You guys have backed a chicken sh1t who can't even stick by his nastyness fot 12 hours.

I don't back Trump at all, I simply would like to see equality and transparency which are two things that any honest person can admit are undeniably non-existent.

If you don't support Trump, I apologies for calling you one of the most gullible people on the planet. Still, this comment says little about his nastyness or chicken sh1tness. The guy, if you "back him" or not is both a chicken sh1t and a nasty f**k.

Shillary has not 'survived' scrutiny. Had she been up against a Reagen, or hell, even a Nixon she would have been beaten badly. There are people who don't want to drink the koolaid Hillary is dishing out. Same with Trump.

Yea she has. She has shown cool composure, trump shows his childish character. Every day, with every new opportunity people see this more.

I know you will dismiss this as with all reality, but your backing a guy who can't successfully navigated himself out of a argument with a private citizen vs. A women who has had every crazy gunning for her better than 20 years.

At 8/11/2016 2:42:59 AM, Double_R wrote:So the Trump/Republican defense of trumps latest size-mic gaffe is that he was "obviously" talking about getting 2nd amendment supporters to go out and vote for him. Let's take an in depth look at what an absurd defense this is...

"Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick --if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks."

First point of note is that Trump is presenting an "if" scenario. In this hypothetical, where Hillary would get to pick her nominees... she would have to already be president for this to be the case. This is not a pre-election scenario, this is a scenario after Hillary has been elected.

To further that point note the second part here... "nothing you can do, folks". If this were a pre-election scenario then there is certainly something the folks can do. This comment only makes sense if we're talking about a post election scenario.

"Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is,"

Who the hell is "the Second Amendment people"? Trump claims he was talking about Second Amendment supporters. So what does he think the people in front of him are? Does he not think the people in the crowd support the Second Amendment, or does he think it makes sense to talk about the crowd in front of him in the third person... in the context of voting for him... at a rally? Urging people to vote for you is not something you communicate in code.

Clearly, he is talking about a group of people apart from his audience. The alternative is just plain stupid.

"I don't know."

So to be clear... The defense is that Trump was talking about unifying 2nd amendment supporters (who apparently do not include the people he is talking too who are all 2nd amendment supports) to stop Hillary by voting for him... and this is an idea that maybe will work... he doesn't know?

And he is saying all this at a rally... An event in which the sole purpose is to entice people to vote for you. That is the dumbest defense I have ever heard.

For whatever it's worth, I don't actually think Trump was calling for an assassination, I just think it was a joke that he realized was a terrible one (not because he understands how dangerous what he said was but because of the awkward laughter of the crowd) and decided to move on hoping no one would notice. What really annoys me though is the way his campaign and his supporters blame the media and "democratic spin", acting like people don't have two eyes and two ears of their own. It's a pathetic way to respond but the Trump campaign has gotten used to telling their political opponents that they aren't thinking for themselves. That's at the level of intellectual dishonesty and intellectual vapidness as dealing with conspiracy theorists.

Anyone else find the irony in a liberal doing a detailed breakdown of exactly what a conservative said and what he meant?

WHy on earth would I. Trump said dumb a$$ crap yet again, and the OP is showing how big a dumb a$$ you have to be to accept the crap walk-back offered by Trump.

incidentally, why does super alpha-man Trump have to walk back all these "straight talk" statements. I though he and his supporters were itching to "say it like it is".

Try doing the same with Hillary, Obama and even Sanders; let's see how it comes out.

What do you even mean? If you are trying to say they say Trump is as bad or worse then them, so vote Trump, just what the hell?

Huh?

Are you saying that.. No, I don't get it at all.

What's so difficult to understand?

1) Democrats take every sentence that comes out of Trump's mouth and performs some serious mental gymnastics to drive home how horrible Trump is.

Right, and you don't think this happens from Republicans? Are you seriously trying to say that.

Not even remotely close to the scale of the left.

2) Democrats take everything democrats say...shrug their shoulders and drive home how terrible Trump is.

Politics. Just politics. If Clinton says something about killing Trump, then you can tell us all about it.

Trump never said anything about killing Hillary.

Honor, integrity, honesty..."politics. Just politics." is no excuse for the loss of these. Our public officials are supposed to hold these values among others even higher than any other citizen.

If a good, honorable man has become so familiarized with the loss of these values in our government that he does not bat an eye when the highest of public officials display loss of these values; the governmental system overseeing the American nation is upon the brink of complete loss and drastic actions must be taken by the citizens to correct the problem before it is beyond saving.

Super alpha Trump says use your gun rights to 'fix' this problem, then hides like a child the next day.

As opposed to democrats who say things like how they have proof Romney doesn't pay taxes then right after the election brags how they lied, they don't care and they would do it again.

I have no idea what you are talking about, but if you would like to show me, feel free. I do however wonder where Trump's taxes are. Any day now, right?

So you can say and do whatever you want, it's OK as long as you don't give a sh!t.

You guys have backed a chicken sh1t who can't even stick by his nastyness fot 12 hours.

I don't back Trump at all, I simply would like to see equality and transparency which are two things that any honest person can admit are undeniably non-existent.

If you don't support Trump, I apologies for calling you one of the most gullible people on the planet. Still, this comment says little about his nastyness or chicken sh1tness. The guy, if you "back him" or not is both a chicken sh1t and a nasty f**k.

Trump is, just as every year since around 2001, once again being audited by the IRS. In fact, every tax filing since I believe it's now 2009 are still held up in audits. Trump has made it clear that his lawyers, as has every independent lawyer who responds to this, have stated that releasing his tax returns prior to resolution is not an option.

A person the suspect or involved in any legal review or case is told this exact same thing from their lawyers every time. Even with something as simple and straight forward as my personal Worker's Comp lawsuit, I am told do not speak about the details. Why is this? Because we do not know the angles or lengths that will be taken by the opposing party.

For example, my very simple, indisputable Worker's Comp case which is backed on my behalf by over 15 medical specialists and over 250 images and opposed by only one medical specialist (the one directly hired by the insurance company) and was disproved by said images has now branched out to 12 independent court cases by the insurance company.

This is why Trump will not release details of his tax returns while in audit status.

Shillary has not 'survived' scrutiny. Had she been up against a Reagen, or hell, even a Nixon she would have been beaten badly. There are people who don't want to drink the koolaid Hillary is dishing out. Same with Trump.

Yea she has. She has shown cool composure, trump shows his childish character. Every day, with every new opportunity people see this more.

I know you will dismiss this as with all reality, but your backing a guy who can't successfully navigated himself out of a argument with a private citizen vs. A women who has had every crazy gunning for her better than 20 years.

I don't exactly approve of Trump's shenanigans. And how will her composure help her when there are plenty of Americans who think the Email fiasco was a shitshow? Have you even addressed mty main point or are you just going to ad hom me because of my supposed zeal for Trump?

Shillary has not 'survived' scrutiny. Had she been up against a Reagen, or hell, even a Nixon she would have been beaten badly. There are people who don't want to drink the koolaid Hillary is dishing out. Same with Trump.

Yea she has. She has shown cool composure, trump shows his childish character. Every day, with every new opportunity people see this more.

I know you will dismiss this as with all reality, but your backing a guy who can't successfully navigated himself out of a argument with a private citizen vs. A women who has had every crazy gunning for her better than 20 years.

I don't exactly approve of Trump's shenanigans.

OK

And how will her composure help her when there are plenty of Americans who think the Email fiasco was a shitshow?

Sure they do. I agree, it was a sh1tshow. However, her ability to stay cool under pressure is a big deal for a POTUS. Do you disagree with that?

Have you even addressed mty main point or are you just going to ad hom me because of my supposed zeal for Trump?

What point would that be? The one about losing to Reagan? No doubt she would lose, but you guys picked Trump - the worst candidate every (and I include Dukakis). The GOP could have had a easy win, but they tossed it for this nutbag Trump.

And how will her composure help her when there are plenty of Americans who think the Email fiasco was a shitshow?

Sure they do. I agree, it was a sh1tshow. However, her ability to stay cool under pressure is a big deal for a POTUS. Do you disagree with that?

Of course not. I'm saying if Hillary was up against a Reagen or a Republican Obama, she would have gotten her a$$ handed to her early on. Do you disagree with this? That's hardly 'surviving' when there is a hefty population that hates you, and still hates you.

Have you even addressed mty main point or are you just going to ad hom me because of my supposed zeal for Trump?

What point would that be? The one about losing to Reagan? No doubt she would lose, but you guys picked Trump - the worst candidate every (and I include Dukakis). The GOP could have had a easy win, but they tossed it for this nutbag Trump.

The GOP was pretty much forced to pick Trump. The alt-right is the GOP equivalent to Dems Bern Victims.